Two-party System
DiscoZombie
Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">the good and the bad</div> you always hear about how bad a two-party system is, and how everyone is always forced to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' etc...
but what are the alternatives?
let's say we had 4 parties of near equal popularity. let's say one candidate won with like 27% of the vote, the others just a little behind. that's 73% of voters whose candidate DIDN'T get elected... whereas, in the most divided 2-party elections (like this one), the worst % possible of upset voters is like 45%...
anyway, go ahead and discuss the bad and good things about this 2-party system...
but what are the alternatives?
let's say we had 4 parties of near equal popularity. let's say one candidate won with like 27% of the vote, the others just a little behind. that's 73% of voters whose candidate DIDN'T get elected... whereas, in the most divided 2-party elections (like this one), the worst % possible of upset voters is like 45%...
anyway, go ahead and discuss the bad and good things about this 2-party system...
Comments
<a href='http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html' target='_blank'>Approval voting</a>
<a href='http://www.instantrunoff.com/' target='_blank'>Instant Runoff Voting</a>
To vehemently bash 2 party system is a sign of ignorance of our electoral system. Yes our system is set up for that but it is foolish to say a Democrat from San Francisco is the same type of democrat from the south. Let me explain.
The two parties are also know as "catch alls" (both in people and ideology), therefore having, in essence a party within a party (almost impossible in Brittan. If your labor, you must vote party lines! Party whips have more sway in parliamentary systems). For example, in the republican party, you have one small segment that wants to ban immigrants/ foreign trade (enter pat Buchanan to represent this demographic) and a larger segment that embrace trade/immigrants (enter john McCain that represents this demographic) So, if you don’t like the 2 candidates, decide which side you lean, join the party and participate in the primary election. You have 9 candidates to choose from in the primary election then 2 in the presidential election. The only people I see that are screwed with our two party system are Left/Right wing fanatics (i.e. Extreme nationalist, Socialist, communist, KKK etc) and those that are dead center (Libertarians are commonly identified as centrist, but traditionally lean republican).
If Nader is really serious about being the president, he would join the democratic party, represent the far left of the dems and participate in the primary election. Instead, he flouts his ego, runs around spouting "Corporate conspiracy theories" and bashes our electoral system using it as an excuse why no one votes for him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem is that california and new york have no idea what Iowa needs, and in order for new york and california to eat, they need iowans to be able to live and produce food. At the same time, new york and california (as a populous of people) are too short sited to see this, and will vote for their own betterment - at the expense of Iowa.
The electoral college attempts to even this out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well put muffassa. I had a discussion about this with in my US government and politics class. People who live in the heartland produce alot of essential goods that are the foundation of our industrialized economy (i.e. Our food). It would be futile to assume that people in New York, San Fransisco and LA would take their needs into consideration when voting..
While i do suport the mantainence of the electorial college, I do support the idea of splitting electorial votes. It mantains the influence of small states (preventing politicians pampering small segments of the country) while giving republicans/dems who live in red/blue states more influence in the election.
The problem is, you have to join a party to be able to vote in their primary (in most states). For example, in the 2000 election, let's say that 60-70% of the nation prefered John McCain over George Bush (which is, in my opinion, the truth) and that he would have beat Al Gore easily. However, only a third of the nation was registered Republican, and they prefered George Bush. Thus, a candidate that had the greatest support in the nation was not a candidate in the general election.
In this two-party system, I rarely find a candidate that supports most of my views and actually has a chance. Most people would classify me as a liberal, to the left of the democratic party. I don't want to register as a Democrat, because I don't agree with a great deal of their policies and I don't often like the candidates they offer. I rarely like the candidates they offer, even in the primaries (Howard Dean was an exception). My views best match the green party. However, they have never had a single candidate elected in a national election. I doubt they have ever had more than a couple even in state-wide elections.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
let's say we had 4 parties of near equal popularity. let's say one candidate won with like 27% of the vote, the others just a little behind. that's 73% of voters whose candidate DIDN'T get elected... whereas, in the most divided 2-party elections (like this one), the worst % possible of upset voters is like 45%...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>DiscoZombie</b> illustrates what would happen if there were 4 popular parties under the current system. Even a party with 27% of the vote could win the presidency. Two parties with similiar views could, and would band together and get 50% of the vote. The other two parties would be forced to join forces or be relegated to a dispoportionately small number of nationally elected officials. Thus, we would get one liberal party and one conservative party, just like the system is right now.
I would like something like <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method' target='_blank'>Condorcet Voting</a> for the presidential election. For the legislative elections, I like <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation' target='_blank'>Proportional Representation</a>. Although there is no perfect method for selecting from more than 2 candidates for one job, I like the condorcet method the most. The only real disadvantage is it's complexity, which may discourage voting. As for proportional representation, even if a third party wins 20% of the vote in a national election (as has happened in the past), it will get 0-1% of the legislative seats, effectively making the positions of 20% of Americans unrepresented in Congress.
I think that the lack of other parties is representative of the fact that certain ideals tend to go hand in hand. Democrats and Republicans represent enough people that have world views that are close enough to party standards. I don't know many people who agree with their party 100%, but they agree with the party and its candidates more than they agree with other parties. I've always taken the "Who represents me the best" approach and as a result, I've ended up voting "across party lines" quite a bit.
Yeah, catch-alls are just hasty generalizations that we use to simplify the complex world of politics into something easier to digest. As a result, we end up voting with the party we agree the most with as opposed to a candidate who represents us exactly.
Or think Nuclear power == evil and build coal plants instead (very ecological....)
Yet they do not tell their followers that coal mines won't do and thus by electricity from our neighbors nuclear plants....
[/end rant] Sorry, just had to vent my anger....
You do not have to convince me of the superiority of political diversity. However, if your people are so dumb to vote a party that hinders your economy, prevents reformation and has otherwhise completely outdated and proven wrong and failed concepts....well, I guess its true that too much democracy is harmful sometimes.....
I guess its one of the great misunderstandings of democracy....You are allowed to have your own opinion....nobody is forced to have one though.... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Thats the big problem in my country....every freaking idiot has an opinion and wants to make good of it, no matter how braindead that may be.....
(if you wanna hear some funny storis, PM me to get some funny facs of the greatness of the Sozialdemocratic/Green Government of the republic of Germany. You won't have a better lough for days, I swear!)
misread the previous post.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Uh, it does not. We have better living standards than america <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That we definately do, at the expense of a paralysing bureocracy, hiliarous high costs for every workers state wellfare, a colapsing state pension system, an exodus in all major industrial branches because of too costly work, severely hindrance in all technological research (most notably genetic engineering) and subsequently emigration od innovative technologies and scientists to more lucrative emloyers, (mostly US companys and elite universities), and last but not least, a waste of billion of Euro for hiliarously misconcepted energypolitcal descisions.
Like building off-shore wind collectors in the open sea..... Yes, they sure work in Scandinavia, however there they build it in 15 feet deep water near the coast. In Germany, theres "Wattenmeer" and its under eclological protection. So we build them in the see.....with an everage of 200 feet depth. The damn foundation is 3 times as costly as the plant itself... and then you don't have the damn cables nessesary to actually transport the electricity back to the coast yet......Not to mention that on the coast, there's no industry that actually needs that power, so go for more 300 miles cable transfer to Bavaria. Yay for economical thinking......
Shall I continue?
Some people my fear right winged/radical elements, some may fear communists, someone is concearned about fundametalists, but thats all nothing compared to Germanys eco-fascits <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->..they will force YOU to become vegetarian too....
But im rambling off topic....
So back on.
First off I am against a 2 party system.
I just stated that colitions of parties may have the disadvantage of the smaller coalition partner forcing its political course on the bigger one which is inclined to give way to remain in power. I just stated my country, in its current state, as a bad example of such a political constitution....
Let me turn this around.
I think the fact that certain ideals are currently hand in hand is representative of the lack of parties.
Coincidence is not causality. I know many pro-life democrats who vote party-line only because other issues are more important to them.
And the argument that pols in big parties can vote against party platform is bogus. Parties are formed to condense power where otherwise it would be too diffuse. Their structure is geared to reward people who advance their policy. If you vote against the party you will not be promoted. Look at the struggles of McCain to push his issues through dispite his massive popularity. Look at Jim Jeffords or any of the deep south Democrats (if they still exist after this election). A lot of Republicans from agricultural areas have serious problems getting elected despite their conservative social values because their party has traditionally been against farm subsidies, and alone they're unable to push legislation through.
More importantly though is to allow all canidates to only have so much money they can spend and no private investing. That would put an end to the two-or-one party system and plutocracy that we have today quickly and would allow the vote to have much more choice.
Combine that with approval voting and you solve so many political issues.